Main menu

In 1789, the United States Constitution became, not just the law of the land but the basis for the laws of our land. At that time, there were thirteen states and the “western” territories – i.e., all the land that extended to the “frontier”, the Mississippi River.

in 1803, President Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from France. This vast territory became the property of the federal government.

In 1848, the United States the Oregon Territory was created, following on a series of treaties with Great Britain. Also in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo led to the U.S. gaining most of the territory that would become California and other states, as well as giving Texas its final border configuration.

And of course there were the smaller additions, like the Gadsden Purchase, and the purchase of Alaska as well as the theft of Hawaii. Every bit of this territory became property of the United States government – of the people of the United States.

Every time the federal government purchased or took new territory, they opened that land to settlers and the railroads. There was not a consistent plan that was followed over the years. At times, settlement was used to determine which territories would be free and which would be slave. Lands granted to the railroads were done in a strange “checkerboard” manner that continues to be a bane for ranchers as well as state and federal land managers.

Eventually, new states were created. By the time of the Civil War, there were 34 states, including California and Oregon on the Pacific coast. The 48 continental states – today’s map of the nation, excluding Alaska and Hawaii – was complted in 1912 with...

Wayback Machine: 2003. Dean for America, at its height. This is why so many of us joined to support Dr Dean. His campaign combined both an unprecedented use of the web but also told us to organize & campaign locally as we thought best; no top-down micromanaging. No, the campaign did not end as we'd hoped. But DFA got so many people involved in politics for the first time; it got me into the way I am today. It brought progressive candidates forward. Then Dr Dean became Chair of the DNC and won back the House & set the stage for Obama's victory.

I still love Howard Dean & the campaign of 2003. Possibly the best thing I've ever been part of in politics. The Sanders people have nothing on what we did in 2003; we built a campaign that brought lasting change to American politics. And we showed that...

I understand: the feds don’t want any martyrs to come out of Harney County. Bloodshed of any kind would be a disaster, and confrontation could easily escalate into gunfire. Some of the out-of-state seditionists at the refuge are itching for a fight, and that’s what the feds do not want to give them.

But I don’t understand why that means they still have electrical power and they get deliveries from FedEx. I don’t understand why they get to meet with the media and plan public events. They are criminals, without question, but apparently a special class of criminal – the kind law enforcement lets set the terms of engagement.

To which I say, Hell no!

I don’t know how much say Gov Kate Brown has in what’s going on, but she needs to pressure the feds to stop treating these guys like honored guests. Senators Wyden and Merkley need to add to that pressure. (Greg Walden, who represents that area in Congress, hasn’t the guts to do anything beyond being mealy-mouthed, but that’s what his Beltway masters pay him for.) Stop letting these thugs act like they’re on vacation at MilitiaWorld.

Cut the power to the site.

Blockade the roads.

No delivery vehicles. No media. Jam their cell phones.

If these guys want to be bad-ass armed “liberators”, they need to act like it. They need to deal with the consequences of committing criminal acts against the federal government, and they need to do it without whining for snacks and socks.

I might have a modicum of respect for these guys if they were acting like Western Men, but they are acting like spoiled thirteen-year-olds. They begin their arguments with “I have lots of guns” and where can reasoned dialogue go from there?...

Let me try to explain what a primary is and why refusing to vote for the other candidate in the general election is the worst possible choice.

Let’s say you have a family of ten people, and they are deciding what to do about dinner. Five of them want burgers; four of them want chicken. These nine are at an impasse, and the tie-breaker goes to Mom who has promised to make her “Frozen Veggie Medley with Cream of Mushroom Soup” along with “Extreme Jello Suprise” for dessert.

No one wants “Frozen Veggie Medley” but if they can’t come to an agreement, then dinner is going to be a nasty affair for everyone but Mom who has been in a very pissy mood of late. Either the four accept burgers – the majority vote – or they can either sulk dinnerlessly or inflict Dinner Hell on everyone.

Ok, not a perfect analogy, but I hope the intent comes through: Hillary or Bernie – or Trump?

A primary is where voters affiliated with a political party select the person they want to be their candidate for office. Because a primary is contested, voters won’t agree with one another. Duh. Many voters will be glad to vote for the winner even if their candidate lost in the primary. They understand that, all differences aside, their party’s nominee is a better choice than the other party’s. They may be disappointed their candidate lost, but they’re willing to suck it up and vote for the person they felt was second-best.

This doesn’t always happen, of course. In some cases, the division between primary opponents, not to mention their supporters, is stark. A campaign can get nasty. For a number of reasons, some supporters may feel resentful, angry,...

Engagement. Activism. Citizenship. Great words; hard to put into practice, as we know. In most elections, a majority of voters don’t bother. And when it comes to the on-going work of government, ever fewer Americans get involved.

Here’s one good reason why. This was submitted to Nextdoor.com, my “Mill Park” version (you sign up for your particular neighborhood). An invitation to participate in an important decision the City of Portland will be making. Here’s the web post (see image for screenshot):

Public hearings on draft 2035 Comprehensive Plan begin this week! 4h ago Community Service Aid Chaise Jonsen from City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability

City Council will hold first hearing on Thursday, November 19. 2 – 3 p.m.: Testimony will be taken on the Economic Opportunity Analysis, Growth Scenarios Report and other supporting documents. 3 – 6 p.m.: Testimony will be taken on the Recommended Draft Comprehensive Plan. You must sign up to testify. Testimony sign-up sheets will be available one hour before the start of each hearing. Additional public hearings are scheduled for Thursday, December 3 and 10. Please check the City Council agenda to confirm dates, times and locations for all hearings.

Shared with all areas in City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability in General

So many problems here; so many barriers to public understanding, much less participation. Let’s start at the top.

“draft 2035 Comprehensive Plan”.

Thank you and good night. Who the hell is going to come within 20 feet of this other than a policy wonk or an insomniac looking for any relief? What a great way to drive away 99.9% of Portlanders: name this event in a way that scares holy hell out of them.

A few days ago, I posted an article on BlueOregon.com stating that I thought Democrats in the Oregon Legislature should not only take no money from gun groups but should donate what they had received to funds set up for victims of shootings. Two outcomes.

One, someone organized gunnists to comment-bomb the post. Which they did. About thirty people commented, few if any of them BlueOregon regulars, not to mention a number from out-of-state. The comments were predictable, a hodge-podge of talking points and nastiness. No actual threats since BlueOregon requires a legitimate login via Facebook. Comical more than anything else.

Second, and disappointing, almost no response from Dems on the proposal itself. One person, and he said he was fine with NRA money being diverted from other campaigns and purposes. As if the NRA has any shortage of funds. I've shared the post a couple of times on Facebook, to a deafening silence. What should I take from that?

Should I accept that Democrats in the community aren't bothered by their electeds in the Leg taking money from gun groups? Or that I'm the only one who thinks this is a problem? It's not like Dems have a shortage of money or that gun money is a large part of their coffers. But I'm a fervent believer in the power of symbolism. And to me, Democratic lawmakers taking any money from organizations that oppose common sense gun safety laws is absolutely wrong.

I intend to keep pushing this until I get more of a response than I have so far (which is limited to one member of the House privately chastising me for attacking colleagues, which I did not do). (Well, yes, Jeff Barker, but he's someone I couldn't support for a number of reasons, not merely the money...

Politicians not only take money from the NRA, they kowtow to that organization’s demands in fear. I don’t expect any amount of bloodshed will change this behavior with Republicans, but Democrats have to do better. They not only need to refuse money from extremist organizations like the NRA, Oregon Firearms Federation (OFF) and Oregon Gun Owners (OGO); they need to return what they’ve already received.

Or even better, donate that money to funds for the victims of the violence made possible by the gun manufacturers and their lobbyists. It will still be blood money but perhaps it can be purified somewhat by helping those harmed so terribly, and needlessly, by gun violence.

Lucero Alcaraz, 19Lucas Eibel, 18Rebecka Carnes, 18

In the big picture of Oregon’s piss-poor campaign finance laws, the money donated by the extremist gun organizations isn’t that large: $25,550 donated to 16 Democratic legislators since 2008 by the NRA, OFF and OGO. Former House Majority Leader Val Hoyle received $1,500 from these groups between 2010 and 2014; in contrast, she raised over $133,000 in 2014 alone. The $250 she accepted from the NRA had no impact on her decision to support the background checks bill (SB 941) with everything she had.

Which begs the question: why take it? It’s blood money, pure and simple, and Democrats need to wash their hands of this money, accepting no more and donating what they have received to those harmed by gun violence.

No Democrat takes more gun money the Rep Jeff Barker. His reputation of being “tough on crime” and his position as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee,...

I want to vote for someone – some Democrat – other than Hillary Clinton. Like many, I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren run; I also want her to have a long, influential career in the U.S. Senate. I believe she's going to pick the latter option, so the question is: who can challenge Hillary? (The question for some, of course, is: who can seriously challenge Hillary?)

I think Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore is a serious challenger. I see him like Howard Dean twelve years ago, but with more familiarity with "big time" politics. O'Malley is taking advantage of Warren's refusal to run by adopting her stance on the issues. I think he agrees with her on the issues and is riding in her wake, so to speak. She created the space for a Democrat to challenge Hillary's presumed assumption, and O'Malley's the one who has stepped up.

And now he's starting to get the kind of media coverage that can convert a long, long shot into a, well, not necessarily a contender (yet) but someone to take seriously. This article from TownHall.com is a good introduction to O'Malley. If you also want to at least consider other Democratic candidates and not just accept the inevitability of HRC, here's a good place to start to learn about the former Governor. He's more liberal than Hillary, and he is probably just as electable when it comes to running against the GOP clown show....

GOP legislators are complaining that Senate Dems are rushing SB 9721, the background checks expansion, through without sufficient public hearings. The complaints began on April 1st, about one hour after the Senate Judiary Committee held – a public hearing.

Few bills get multiple public hearings. Even the most controversial get a public hearing in the chamber where the bill started, a work session to vote the bill out of committee, and then a debate on the floor of that chamber. Should the bill clear all those hurdles, the process begins on the side of the building. And that doesn’t take into account lobbying, citizen activism, and other means of commenting and attempting to influence the bill.

So “only” one hearing before moving to a work session is not unusual. Sen Floyd Prozanski, chair of the Judiciary Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, even delayed the work session to allow for a fair hearing of amendments to the bill. If his goal was to rush the bill through, he would not have done so.

On top of which, Tuesday’s public hearing for SB 9721 was actually the third public hearing for expansion of Oregon’s background check law. On May 13, 2013, the first iteration of this bill, SB 700, was given a long hearing by Sen Prozanski; on February 6, 2014, SB 1551 had a lengthy hearing – the second attempt to close the loophole that lets a gun dealer sell a firearm without a background check just by doing it “privately”....